Donald I, emperor of the world.

[First Aspect]

-&.i


The US 2024 figures are actually worse. Over 1300 killed I believe. The point is well made though.

A lot of those people will have been to blame for being shot, by being black.

 

[swee'pea99]

The issues affecting base supporters will be the cost of living, rising prices and a stagnating economy.
Unfortunately, there are enough of them who don't see the dictatorial tendencies and are blind to say, domestically ICE agents to international imperialistic ambitions but I think that sector of the US has always been there, it's just that Trump took the band aid off of veiled prejudice.
However, that base is rapidly dwindling due to home issues of affordability and the promises he made re.: MAGA, Epstein files, no more foreign wars etc have been broken.
I think it's a bit sad that they are probably less concerned about killing people abroad and interference but more concerned that foreign conflict is not 'America first'

Tennessee V Garner, re affirmed Barnes case 2025

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.

Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.

But you quoted it yourself: "probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

And you heard it. "farking bitch." Now, look me in the eye and tell me that's the voice of a man in fear of his life. Because it's either that or it's murder. And no amount of backstory smokescreen will change that one iota.

 

[CXRAndy]

But you quoted it yourself: "probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

And you heard it. "farking bitch." Now, look me in the eye and tell me that's the voice of a man in fear of his life. Because it's either that or it's murder. And no amount of backstory smokescreen will change that one iota.

Are you referring to the officer who walked up to the door and tried to open it.

He said get out of the car, get out of the ducking car, before the driver started to drive forward

 

[matticus]

ICE aren't police.

I've read that they have none of the legal powers that US police have; and their jurisdiction ONLY covers immigrants. So they have no business to interfere with US citizens.
Can anyone confirm?

 

[CXRAndy]

ICE aren't police.

I've read that they have none of the legal powers that US police have; and their jurisdiction ONLY covers immigrants. So they have no business to interfere with US citizens.
Can anyone confirm?

Exceptions Where ICE Can Arrest U.S. Citizens


ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers with broader authority in limited cases:
Criminal violations: They can arrest anyone (including U.S. citizens) for federal crimes, such as assaulting or interfering with federal officers, obstructing justice during an ICE operation, or other felonies (e.g., under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(5)(B) for certain felonies).
During operations: If a U.S. citizen interferes with an immigration arrest (e.g., blocking agents, assaulting officers), they can be arrested on those criminal grounds.
Mistaken identity or brief detention: ICE may briefly detain someone they reasonably suspect is a non-citizen (e.g., based on appearance, location, or other factors) until citizenship is verified. Once confirmed as a citizen, they must be released immediately, as ICE has no ongoing authority.

 

[Pblakeney]

ICE aren't police.

I've read that they have none of the legal powers that US police have; and their jurisdiction ONLY covers immigrants. So they have no business to interfere with US citizens.
Can anyone confirm?

Dunno, but there is a clip on YT of a NY policeman ripping a mask and balaclava off an ICE agent telling him basically to f-off.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Tennessee V Garner, re affirmed Barnes case 2025

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.

Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.

You have copied this from somewhere in the belief that it supports the rights of officers to shoot people but have you actually read it? I am not sure you have, given the second half of it is a duplication of the first half.

Did you read this bit? "This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time)."

This is explained in more detail by this bit of research into the implications of the case:

In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed and clarified the application of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) through its unanimous ruling in Barnes v. Felix. While Tennessee v. Garner established that deadly force is only constitutional when a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury, Barnes v. Felix ensures that this assessment cannot be limited to just the split-second "moment of threat".
The impact of these combined precedents on police shootings as of 2026 includes:

1. Rejection of the "Moment-of-Threat" Rule

• The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot put on "chronological blinders" by only looking at the exact second a shooting occurs.
• Courts must now evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including events and facts known to the officer leading up to the use of force.
• This prevents the narrow legal framework previously used by some circuits (notably the 5th Circuit) that often shielded officers from liability by ignoring their prior actions during an encounter.

2. Influence on Police Behavior and Shooting Rates

• Historical Impact: Research following the original 1985 Garner decision showed a 16% reduction in police homicides nationwide as states eliminated "fleeing felon" laws that allowed shooting unarmed suspects.
• 2026 Outlook: The Barnes (2025) decision is expected to further influence police departments to prioritize de-escalation and situational awareness, as their conduct before a shooting is now clearly subject to judicial review.

3. Shift in Legal Accountability

• The ruling clarifies that "earlier facts and circumstances" are relevant because they provide context for why an officer perceived a threat as legitimate or not.
• While it does not officially adopt the "officer-created jeopardy" theory (which blames officers for escalating situations), it ensures that a suspect's prior non-threatening behavior can be weighed against the officer's claim of an immediate threat.

4. Policy and Training Adjustments

• Municipalities and police departments are being urged to revise use-of-force policies to align with this broader "totality" standard to avoid liability.
• The decision encourages a more "accurate, fair, and realistic" assessment of officer conduct, recognizing both the dangers of the job and the necessity of Fourth Amendment accountability.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

ICE aren't police.

I've read that they have none of the legal powers that US police have; and their jurisdiction ONLY covers immigrants. So they have no business to interfere with US citizens.
Can anyone confirm?

This is an interesting read. All you need to know about ICE.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp80ljjd5rwo

 

[CXRAndy]

No I read the criteria of

Totality of the circumstances.

The incident lasted only a few seconds, the officer fired after being struck by the vehicle, split second after.

See CNN analysis

 

[Ian H]

He's read the criteria of the totality!

Wow!


😂

 

[Rusty Nails]

No I read the criteria of

Totality of the circumstances.

The incident lasted only a few seconds, the officer fired after being struck by the vehicle, split second after.

See CNN analysis

So you didn't read it all, just cherry-picked one bit. (The bit that was italicised to catch your eye)

You obviously didn't read this bit: Barnes v. Felix ensured that this assessment cannot be limited to just the split-second "moment of threat".

 

[Beebo]

Trump will never go before a court, the moment there is a sniff of that possibility he will suddenly be diagnosed with dementia.
My only hope is that his advisors get punished for manipulating him whilst knowingly unfit for office.

 

[CXRAndy]

So you didn't read it all, just cherry-picked one bit. (The bit that was italicised to catch your eye)

You obviously didn't read this bit: Barnes v. Felix ensured that this assessment cannot be limited to just the split-second "moment of threat".

Well

Let's see which case law wins out

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well

Let's see which case law wins out

So you admit you posted something which you hadn't read, other than three words, didn't understand and which actually contradicted your argument. Puts your contributions in context.

Hopefully we will see, preferably in front of a court or judge that hasn't been handpicked by Trump.

And it's not different case laws but one bit of case law covering two cases, the second one extending the rulings of the first. They link together.

 

[C R]

You have copied this from somewhere in the belief that it supports the rights of officers to shoot people but have you actually read it? I am not sure you have, given the second half of it is a duplication of the first half.

Did you read this bit? "This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time)."

This is explained in more detail by this bit of research into the implications of the case:

In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed and clarified the application of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) through its unanimous ruling in Barnes v. Felix. While Tennessee v. Garner established that deadly force is only constitutional when a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury, Barnes v. Felix ensures that this assessment cannot be limited to just the split-second "moment of threat".
The impact of these combined precedents on police shootings as of 2026 includes:

1. Rejection of the "Moment-of-Threat" Rule

• The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot put on "chronological blinders" by only looking at the exact second a shooting occurs.
• Courts must now evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including events and facts known to the officer leading up to the use of force.
• This prevents the narrow legal framework previously used by some circuits (notably the 5th Circuit) that often shielded officers from liability by ignoring their prior actions during an encounter.

2. Influence on Police Behavior and Shooting Rates

• Historical Impact: Research following the original 1985 Garner decision showed a 16% reduction in police homicides nationwide as states eliminated "fleeing felon" laws that allowed shooting unarmed suspects.
• 2026 Outlook: The Barnes (2025) decision is expected to further influence police departments to prioritize de-escalation and situational awareness, as their conduct before a shooting is now clearly subject to judicial review.

3. Shift in Legal Accountability

• The ruling clarifies that "earlier facts and circumstances" are relevant because they provide context for why an officer perceived a threat as legitimate or not.
• While it does not officially adopt the "officer-created jeopardy" theory (which blames officers for escalating situations), it ensures that a suspect's prior non-threatening behavior can be weighed against the officer's claim of an immediate threat.

4. Policy and Training Adjustments

• Municipalities and police departments are being urged to revise use-of-force policies to align with this broader "totality" standard to avoid liability.
• The decision encourages a more "accurate, fair, and realistic" assessment of officer conduct, recognizing both the dangers of the job and the necessity of Fourth Amendment accountability.

You know it can't read, much less understand anything at that level.